Passed in the Senate with a vote of 88-11 and the House of Representatives with a vote of 337-77.
Applies to public secondary schools that:
Receive federal funding
Have a "limited open forum"
Text of the Equal Access Act (EAA) can be found here or here.
Primary purpose of the Equal Access Act as originally implemented:
End discrimination against religious speech in public schools
Congress noted that there was a constitutional prohibition against government endorsement of religion
Congress felt that non-school-sponsored student speech - including religious speech - should not be removed from public schools
Was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision in the case of Board of Educ. of Westside Community School v. Mergens in 1990.
Three basic concepts in the act:
Nondiscrimination - Secondary schools are required to treat all non-curricular student-initiated groups and activities equally.
Student-initiated and student-led - In order to qualify for protection under the Equal Access Act, groups and activities must be student initiated and led.
Local control - The Equal Access Act does not limit the ability of a school to maintain discipline and order to protect staff and student well-being.
Faculty may be present to ensure the safety of students and property, but may not actively participate.
Two major cases that are cited when discussing the Equal Access Act:
Board of Educ. of Westside Community School v. Mergens - A high school student in Nebraska wanted to create a Christian Club at her high school. The club did not have a faculty sponsor as other clubs at the school had. Because of the fact that there was no faculty sponsor and because school administrators believed that a religious club would violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, her request was denied. The student sued the school board in federal court. The court sided with the school in the case stating that the other clubs at the school were curriculum based and therefore did not fall under the "limited open forum" standard applied in the EAA (Equal Access Act). The student appealed to the Eighth Circuit court which ruled in her favor. The school then appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court stated that the other clubs cited in the case were not curriculum related and that the school had to provide a "limited open forum" to all students who desired to participate in such groups. The Court also stated that the school could limit activities that "substantially interfered" with orderly conduct. In addition, the Court stated that the EAA did not violate the Establishment Clause because it did not have a religious purpose, but rather a secular one. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Eighth Circuit court that the school had violated the EAA.
Boyd County High GSA v Board of Education - A Kentucky high school student organization claimed that the rights they were guaranteed under the EAA were violated because the school district denied access to school facilities given to other student groups. The purpose of the Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA) was to give students a safe place to talk about anti-gay harassment and work to promote greater tolerance and acceptance of all students regardless of sexual orientation. The organization was initially approved, but when opponents of the group staged a protest and boycott, the school board voted to suspend all clubs both curricular and non-curricular for the rest of the school year. Despite this suspension, many student organizations continued to have use of the school's facilities during non-instructional time. Because of this,the GSA organization filed for a preliminary injunction against the district. The court stated that because other student groups continued to meet, the district was maintaining a "limited open forum." The court stated that those creating the disruptions were opposed to the organization and therefore would not be allowed a "heckler's veto." The court decided that since the plaintiffs were likely to win and would be "irreparably injured absent preliminary relief" that an injunction would not harm the school district and would "serve the public interest" that a preliminary injunction would be granted. The district and school were ordered to give the GSA organization equal access to the activities of other non-curriculum groups. Afterward a district code of conduct was created that prohibited the harassment of homosexual students. It is interesting to note that this case spawned a follow-up case Morrison v. Board of Education of Boyd County. In this case a Christian student sued the Board of Education for infringing upon his First Amendment right of free speech. He argued that the code of conduct restricted his right to express his belief that homosexuality was a sin. Both a federal district court and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the district, stating that Morrison was never punished under the code and therefore had no legal injuries. The district's code was later amended to allow for opinions such as Morrison's to be expressed, so long as they were not defamatory or inflammatory. Morrison appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which declined to hear the case.
The Equal Access Act: